• 6 Posts
  • 1.85K Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 11th, 2023

help-circle
  • I’m sorry to hear you’re having a hard time. It can be difficult to reconcile something you consider part of yourself being shared by others alwhile they also do or say things that you know are wrong. Regardless of your particular doctrines views on the matter, on paper it’s not acceptable to wish harm on others or celebrate it.

    I don’t believe in a deity, and I don’t hold it against anyone who does.

    What you need to do, in my opinion, is taken a step back and ask yourself if you do or not, or if you’re just not sure.
    Then think about what makes you say you don’t want to leave. You shared good reasons for wanting to leave, so what are your reasons for staying? What are you getting out of it?

    Once you know where you stand on dieties, and have thought about what you’re reluctant to let go you’ll be in a better position to do what’s right for you.
    Some people stay in a religion for social reasons.
    You might be able to find what you need from the church elsewhere.

    Regardless of the answers, remember that you can choose to live the highest ideals of Christianity regardless of membership in a church or faith in any diety. That affiliation with people who are failing at that has caused distress is at least a sign that you’re pointed in that direction, so trust in yourself and try to act with kindness and love, and look after yourself.




  • ricecake@sh.itjust.workstoISO8601@lemmy.sdf.orgISO 8601 ftw rule
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    People don’t typically put the smallest part at the bottom of the pyramid, since pyramids have the biggest part at the bottom.

    It’s pretty typical to, when discussing things with ranked importance of that build in one another, to arrange them like a pyramid to convey the ordered nature.


  • I’m growing irritated at this type of comment being the top of every thread about anything they do.

    Just like how they can do multiple things at once, people can react to multiple things at once.

    Telling people to shut up and take it is… Well, “congrats, you’re doing exactly what they want”.

    Which do you think is more likely to get people to do something? The perception that they’ve done one terrible thing or the perception they’ve done a bunch of terrible things, some awful ones, and uncountable absolutely idiotic ones?


  • Well, yeah. That’s what it said.

    It’s trained by reading the horrible morass of stuff on the Internet. Topics with larger amounts of disinformation are areas where they’re very prone to making mistakes. Crossing those topics with ones that misinformation or the appearance of misinformation are particularly damaging to the world or to their reputation and you have a good list of topics that are probably not good candidates to let your chatbot talk about.

    It doesn’t do “reasoning” or “critical thinking” in the way you might expect for something that can communicate articulately. It doesn’t know what’s accurate or not, only what’s likely to be stated on the Internet. Unfortunately, it’s very likely for people on the Internet to say some bonkers things about the 2020 election in specific, and anything political in general. Even in sources that normally might be ranked higher for factuality, like a news publication.
    It’s not just trump, it’s anything political.

    This type of AI isn’t an expert, it’s a mimic. It knows how to mimic patterns, and it’s been told to mimic something knowledgeable and helpful based on all the text on the Internet, where people regularly present themselves as knowledgeable regardless of their basic sanity.



  • I think you might be parsing the sentiment of the phrase a bit differently than how it’s intended.

    It sounds like you’re interpreting it to mean “parenting sucks because my children hate me and never listen”.
    I would hear the phrase as closer to "parenting is difficult because the person the work is done for variously doesn’t see the work being done, takes it as a given, or only expresses any gratitude far, far down the line because as you said: “The reward from parenting is raising an awesome strong kind productive member of society that you could actually be proud of and create amazing memories with”.

    It’s thankless because the hardwork is often unnoticed or taken for granted, not because it’s difficult.

    People should keep in mind what you say about teenagers, but I don’t think it’s related to the phrase.



  • This is how they start meaningfully erroding abortion rights at the federal level, as well a gay rights.
    They’ve long held that preventing a Christian from interfering in someone else’s life is an infringement on religious freedom.
    They’re going to find ways to end Christian persecution by removing rules that say Christians have to fill prescriptions they think might be related to abortion, aren’t bound by anti discrimination laws, are institutionally allowed to break rules governing the behavior of hospitals, orphanages and adoption agencies, or any number of other charities.




  • In my experience the Foss community tends towards the “legal weed and less cops” style of libertarianism and less the “police exist to protect my right to 3 12 year old wives from the tyranny of criticism” style.
    I can generally get along with the “coercion bad” libertarians better than with the “abolish the government because rules shouldn’t exist” crowd.


  • I disagree with him but I don’t think those are contradictory. A watered down example: I don’t like hot dogs in my macaroni, but I respect other people’s right to have them. If you ask me if I want them I’ll say no, but I won’t tell you not to.
    A more ethics one than preference: I think it’s wrong to cheat on a romantic partner. It’s a bad thing to do and people shouldn’t do it. However, I would staunchly oppose a law that said people couldn’t. People should have the freedom to do the wrong thing as suits them (boundaries and edge cases not withstanding).

    People respecting that other people may have opposing beliefs about how to act and respecting that is what we want, not homogeneous beliefs.


  • A part of it was that to make ice engines more efficient, they got more complicated, which made them heavier. Weight and efficiency standards are looser on larger categories of vehicle, and consumers typically like more space and perceive them as safer.
    So you sell more of them and it’s easier to keep pace with the regulations.

    My last vehicle switch was from a hatchback to a compact SUV. New car weighs twice as much as the old one, but also gets significantly higher fuel efficiency.


  • There are many good reasons to use and learn Linux. Political ideology of its creators is very much not one of them.

    They’re largely professional people: their politics almost never influence what they’re building in a practical way.

    The (generally) accepting and tolerant culture within which it was produced is part of what made it possible for it to be what it is, but you won’t really see that in the software itself.


  • Though the headnotes were drawn directly from uncopyrightable judicial opinions, the court analogized them to the choices made by a sculptor in selecting what to remove from a slab of marble. Thus, even though the words or phrases used in the headnotes might be found in the underlying opinions, Thompson Reuters’ selection of which words and phrases to use was entitled to copyright protection. Interestingly, the court stated that “even a headnote taken verbatim from an opinion is a carefully chosen fraction of the whole,” which “expresses the editor’s idea about what the important point of law from the opinion is.” According to the court, that is enough of a “creative spark” to be copyrightable. In other words, even if a work is selected entirely from the public domain, the simple act of selection is enough to give rise to copyright protection.

    The court distinguished cases holding that intermediate copying of computer source code was fair use, reasoning that those courts held that the intermediate copying was necessary to “reverse engineer access to the unprotected functional elements within a program.” Here, copying Thompson Reuters’ protected expression was not needed to gain access to underlying ideas.

    https://natlawreview.com/article/court-training-ai-model-based-copyrighted-data-not-fair-use-matter-law

    It sounds like the case you mentioned had a government entity doing the annotation, which makes it public even though it’s not literally the law.
    Reuters seems to have argued that while the law and cases are public, their tagging, summarization and keyword highlighting is editorial.
    The judge agreed and highlighted that since westlaw isn’t required to view the documents that everyone is entitled to see, training using their copy, including the headers, isn’t justified.

    It’s much like how a set of stories being in the public domain means you can copy each of them, but my collection of those stories has curation that makes it so you can’t copy my collection as a whole, assuming my work curating the collection was in some way creative and not just “alphabetical order”.

    Another major point of the ruling seems to rely on the company aiming to directly compete with Reuters, which undermines the fair use argument.


  • I don’t think that’s the best argument in favor of AI if you cared to make that argument. The infringement wasn’t for their parsing of the law, but for their parsing of the annotations and commentary added by westlaw.

    If processing copy written material is infringement then what they did is definitively infringement.
    The law is freely available to read without westlaw. They weren’t making the law available to everyone, they were making a paid product to compete with the westlaw paid product. Regardless of justification they don’t deserve any sympathy for altruism.

    A better argument would be around if training on the words of someone you paid to analyze an analysis produces something similar to the original, is it sufficiently distinct to actually be copy written? Is training itself actually infringement?


  • Dumb as fuck. I can also guarantee that if any organization is capable of hiding content it’s the NSA. Both via the tricky methods you think of when you think of the NSA hiding data, and the much more boring “having so much data that’s so sensitive that no one is allowed to just run a search over all of it, and if they were allowed to they wouldn’t be capable of actually doing so”.

    It’s probably going to end up being pages from the HR wiki, random pages talking about historical stuff and things like that.
    Dumb, wasteful and pointless, but also not going to actually impact NSA operations, which would really only be a problem if it deleted one of those tidbits of math the NSA figured out and has been sitting on.


  • I appreciate the reply/description of my life. :)

    I have gotten myself some medication, which has helped a lot. I still have the impulse to jump right to the massive project, but now it’s way easier to recognize that “learn how to do it” is a step, and that a smaller project might give fulfillment, in addition to learning how to do it more effectively because you actually finish, or even start.

    I’ve also had good luck with teaching myself that sometimes it’s better to do half of task than to be overwhelmed and not do the entire thing.
    It’s not ideal to get dressed out of a laundry basket next to the dryer for a month, but all the clothes are there or in the laundry basket, so things look clean and I’m only slightly wrinkly for a few minutes.

    Biggest side effect I got from the medication was a tendency towards dry skin and pimples. I actually sleep a little better because I get in bed to read a book when I’m “supposed” to, so when I get sleepy I just… Sleep, instead of idling on the couch for hours.